of the Church, and the feudal dues — were almost exhausted. Nor were the Stuarts as economical as Elizabeth had been. Moreover, the need of a standing army was beginning to be felt, and as the people were manifesting a stronger dislike to irregular methods of taxation than ever before, Parliament was almost indispensable.

Not only the greater strength of Parliament, but the growing inadequacy of the Council made it evident that the former must increase, while the latter decreased. For the Council had to contend not only against attacks from without, but also against internal weaknesses. In the first place, at a time when the questions of the day required especially efficient men to cope with them, the Council was made up of especially inefficient men. There were giants who sat around the council table of Elizabeth, but such men were not often to be found among the advisers of her In the second place, the large number of persons in the councils of the Stuarts was a source of weakness. It was soon found that there were many things which it was impossible to bring before so large an assembly. If all state affairs were to be discussed in the Council, its numbers must be reduced, and it must be frequently reconstituted. Hence, under the Stuarts, there was generally an interior council, of which we shall hear more later.

In the third place,

the kings themselves, in their desire for personal government, did much to weaken the Council, and often drove their councillors to take sides with the Commons. For example, with the exception of Bolingbroke, the entire Council of James I. was violently opposed to. a the King's Spanish policy.

Thus, hard pressed on all sides, the Privy Council was weakening. The extra efforts which it was putting forth in some directions served but to indicate the desperation of a dying cause.

CHAPTER II

THE FIRST STEP TOWARD CABINET GOVERNMENT

The Cabinet a committee of the Privy Council Gradual separation of small number of privy councillors from the rest-Hostility of Parliament thereby increased - Early use of the term Cabinet Council-Attempts of the House of Commons to appoint the councillors and to hold them responsible — Clarendon's Committee of Foreign Affairs — Precedents for it- Its composition and powers- Relation to the Privy Council Relation to Parliament — Impeachment of ministers by Parliament - Clarendon keeps his position through favor of Parliament, in spite of the displeasure of the King. A number of ministers, but no ministry-No acknowledged First Minister -The King de facto and de jure head of government - Unanimity in the Cabinet not required - Ministers do not resign when their advice is not taken-Ministers not always consulted -The King has advisers other than the ministers - Development of the idea of a ministry as shown in the impeachments of Clarendon and Danby.

I

HAVE said that the Cabinet is a committee of the

Privy Council. The Privy Council now numbering about two hundred is still the sole legal adviser of the Crown. Although this large body no longer holds deliberative sessions, and its functions are merely of a

formal executive nature, it is legally only in virtue of his position as a privy councillor that the Cabinet minister has a voice in the administration. Simply as a member of the Cabinet he is bound by no oath or declaration of secrecy, for the only oath required of him is that of the privy councillor.

The first step in the development of the Cabinet was naturally the altogether informal separation by the sovereign of a small number of the Privy Council from the rest, that he might discuss some of the more important affairs of state with them, before bringing them before the whole Board. This, as a settled and permanent arrangement, was accomplished gradually. Doubtless there had always been royal favorites, to whom more was intrusted than to ordinary councillors. Bacon tells us that "King Henry the Seventh of England, in his greatest business, imparted himself to none, except it were to Morton and Fox." Henry VIII., too, had a tendency to consult with a certain number of councillors rather than with the whole body. Indeed, he adopted the practice of appointing what were known as "ordinary councillors," with the distinct understanding that they were rarely, if ever, to be consulted. Their position was hardly more than honorary. Again, in the Council of Edward VI., there was a political committee of eight chosen out of a body of forty. 1 Bacon, "On Council."

But it was the Stuart kings who made this plan of intrusting the entire government to a very few persons a settled policy. Under James I. complaints were made that the government was run entirely by a few friends of the King.

Indeed, this first step increased rather than diminished the enmity between the executive and the legislative. Nor is it difficult to see why it should have done so. Parliament naturally thought that the Council as a whole was less likely to encroach upon its interests than were a small number of irresponsible royal favorites probably chosen simply because they might be counted upon to support any tyrannical schemes which the King had set his heart upon. It was at this stage in the development that Bacon pointed out the evils of this system of government in the familiar passage, in which he tells us that because of the inconvenience caused by a large council, "the doctrine of Italy and the custom of France in some kings' times hath introduced Cabinet councils, a remedy worse than the disease, which hath turned Metis the wife into Metis the mistress, that is, councils of state to which princes are married to councils of favored persons, recommended chiefly by flattery and affection."1

In spite of Bacon's protest the practice was kept up, and hardened into a custom. But custom did not

1 Bacon, "On Council."